Fort Davis, Texas original Mtn Howitzer

[HuecoDoc]

I visited Fort Davis, TX August 30th and I was able to get some good pictures of their original Mountain Howitzer, Alger #316, 1863.  As far as they know, the carriage is original.  Can anyone tell whether this is the case?  Do they commonly exist in this good condition?  It is very dry there, and when the fort was active, some carriages had problems with their spokes shrinking and loosening. Fort Davis is considered one of the best surviving examples of early army forts and many original buildings remain, so I thought maybe the condition of the howitzer is exceptional. While mountain howitzers in the 1800's were minor players in the east, they were a principle artillery of this region.





They have an original 3" ordnance rifle, too.  I have detailed pictures if anyone wants to see something specific.

[GGaskill]

If they kept them painted that well continuously, I could believe they are original but I would be surprised that maintenance would be kept up as the fort fell into disuse unless they were abandoned and taken by some third party and maintained by them.

[cannonmn]

I'd have to guess that most if not all of the wood on both carriages has been replaced if the iron is original, which I cannot tell.  There are no signs of age on the wood.  I assess "antiques" every day and separate old from new and I have to see signs of age to call something an antique.

We can't tell if the iron is old or not from the pix.  The tires on the mountain howitzer look too even and fresh to have rolled over rocky ground back when.  You need close-ups of the front of the cheekstraps to see if they are marked or not.  If original they should be marked with the arsenal where made, carriage serial number, and date.

[HuecoDoc]

Thanks for the insights.  I didn't think any carriages survived this well, but I did hope so.  Do these hardware details help?  Any other piece or angle? 

[dan610324]

Im not so sure thats an original , at least not all pieces .

it looks like the chains keeping the trunnion vedges are zink plated .
that cant be original , or ??

[HuecoDoc]

Zinc plating (I just learned) already existed, but I don't know whether it was common enough to be used on artillery then.  I'm sure a bunch of folks here know.

Im not so sure thats an original , at least not all pieces .

it looks like the chains keeping the trunnion vedges are zink plated .
that cant be original , or ??

[cannonmn]

Thanks for additional pix.  Now I'm 99% sure that the carriage is a complete repro.  The first pic showing gun muzzle and both cheekstraps is convincing.  The left strap looks like it is brass where there's no paint.  The front of at least one of them would be marked if real.  The cheekstraps are very rough and beaten-looking, which isn't what we usually see since that area didn't get any abuse to speak of.  The elev. screw should be fully in contact with the basering and is not, showing the carriage is slightly out of spec and would not have been accepted by the Army inspectors.  Repro in my opinion.

[cannonmn]

Sorry I didn't catch this earlier, but the bronze tube is a repro also.  The fort must have the original tube in some secure location, or it was stolen and they are displaying a repro replacement.  How do I know it is a repro?

The boring of the bore does not have the appearance of an original bore. 

The muzzle markings are made with poorly-aligned modern metal stamps and are not the proper wider-cavity lettering, perfectly aligned, that . I expect to see in original markings.

Alger 12-pdr. mountain howitzer no. 316 was inspected by Thomas J. Rodman (TJR) NOT "NPS" (National Park Service) as marked on the repro.

The maker's initials should be "C.A. & Co." I think, but maybe "C.A. Co." was used as well.